RE: [gnso-restruc-dt] outstanding issues

["Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Liz,

I don't think what you and I are suggesting is that different. Each
House should have input on the criteria they think is best for an NCA in
their House, but not actually make the choice. The preferences of the
NCAs themselves could be another factor. But in my opinion, unless there
is someone assigned to make a definitive decision (at least when all
else fails), this just won't work well. However, I do question the
usefullness of having them float within a term. Seems to add a layer
complexity with little identifiable benefit.

Tim  
 
  -------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [gnso-restruc-dt] outstanding issues
From: Liz Williams <lizawilliams@xxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, March 30, 2009 12:54 am
To: Tim Ruiz <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx

Hello Tim & Chuck & everyone 

I have been thinking about the role of the Nominating Committee
representatives -- I am one of the BC elected reps to the Nominating
Committee.  Of course, the group needs to get broader input on that from
others in the Nominating Committee realm about how to be most
constructive.  My personal thoughts are that it would be short sighted
to have the Nominating Committee's remit extended into appointing
particular people to particular spots.


I would have thought it more sensible to have the list of the three
Nominating Committee representatives prepared and then seek the guidance
of, say, the existing chair and the chairs of the two houses to balance
up where the NomCom reps should be seated.  There is also nothing to
stop us rotating the NomCom reps through each of the houses and the
floating spot, given that they have two year terms.


In practice though I would have thought that a good Nominating Committee
rep would "sit" with a house but be capable of moving and consulting and
learning through the two houses.  That element is something that, I
think, needs to be fed back into the Nominating Committee when they are
doing the fine balancing act of finding the right people for the right
places for the right time.  That changes each year and it certainly
changes depending on the Statements of Interest.


Best wishes.


Liz
   ....
Liz Williams
+44 1963 364 380 tel
+44 7824 8777 57 mob







  On 30 Mar 2009, at 03:22, Tim Ruiz wrote:

  

Regarding 12, I was thinking within a single SG not a House, but
probably wasn't clear about that. But I think the way it is spelled out
in the bylaws works well, probably better.


Tim 


  -------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: [gnso-restruc-dt] outstanding issues
From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, March 29, 2009 4:49 pm
To: "Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>, <gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx>




Thanks for the responses Tim. I didn't mean to imply that I thought
there was a lot work, but I do believe that there is more to do than
just finish one item. Rather than complicate the redlined document
further, here are my responses to Tim's comments that were added to
mine:


3. I am okay with Tim's suggestion: ". . set a single target end date
for completion of all tasks and say that our work plan is proceeding on
the basis of hitting that date." 


9. I am not ready to concede the responsibility of apportioning NomCom
reps to houses solely to the NomCom yet. I personally would like to
discuss this further. At a minimum, I think it would be helpful to
provide the NomCom some guidelines for the NomCom reps for each house
and possibly for the nonvoting seat as well. For example, as I said
elsewhere in this discussion, I think it would be beneficial for the
NomCom rep in the contracted party house to have some basic
understanding of the business and operations of registries and
registrars; certainly, some of this can be learned but the smaller the
learning curve, the sooner someone can become productive, the better.
It is not my place to speak for the users house, but I would think that
it would be useful if the NomCom rep in that house had a balance of
experience in both the commercial and non-commercial world and no
evidence of bias toward commercial or noncommercial interests. Looking
ahead to Tim's comment for item 10, I don't think we are far apart.


11. I do not see my question regarding the GAC as a big issue. I am
okay if we leave it as is but I simply wanted to raise the issue.


12. I don't understand how this approach works for geographic diversity
requirements for the User SGs: "No two Councilors from the same
Geographic region." Would they then only be allowed five Councilors
until the Bylaws are changed? What am I missing here.


Chuck






 -----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx 
[mailto:owner-gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz
Sent: Friday, March 27, 2009 12:21 PM
To: gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-restruc-dt] outstanding issues


I think there is some work left to do on a few, but perhaps 
not as much as Chuck. A few that do need work we should be 
able to knock them off quickly, understanding that elements 
may evolve as we see how the new structure works. Spending 
too much time trying to get it perfect is pointless.


My comments and suggestions are in the attached.


Tim 


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: [gnso-restruc-dt] outstanding issues
From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, March 26, 2009 1:51 pm
To: "Philip Sheppard" <philip.sheppard@xxxxxx>, 
<gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx>


I would agree that a lot of items are done but also think 
there is more than one that still needs work. My comments are 
highlighted in the attached file.


Chuck 


 -----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx 
[mailto:owner-gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of 
 Philip Sheppard
 Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2009 10:19 AM
To: gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [gnso-restruc-dt] outstanding issues


Avri,
I agree with your proposals and having revisited the list 
 believe all 
 but one item is done and ready for Council approval.
I attach suggested way forward.
The only item left is any voting thresholds not yet addressed.


Philip